Well, Townhall is not exactly an academic source, but to answer the question in the thread title, sure. Why not? Doesn't bother me.
The American people are on the side of same-sex marriage. Public opinion on that subject has shifted rapidly and continues to do so. As for your "judicial fiat" nonsense, that's just what people say when they disagree with a judge's decision but can't actually articulate any legal reason that the judge's decision is wrong.The decisions of these courts are nothing but judicial fiat. They unconstitutionally trample on the rights of large majorities to make their own laws and do not deserve respect. The recent one out of Virginia that declares same-sex marriage a fundamental right is an especially outrageous new departure. The Supreme Court has been very careful to avoid suggesting anything so ludicrous. But a Court that can concoct a "fundamental right" to abortion out of thin air is capable of anything--if it thinks the American people will sit still for it.
The people are only indirectly arbiters of the constitution, via the election of representatives. The people have elected representatives, who have in turn appointed these judges. You want Congress to reverse these judges' decisions? Great. Call your representative and tell them that. We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy. (AKA a republic) And for good reason. The vicious whims of the majority can easily be used to suppress the rights of the minority, which is exactly what you are advocating here.The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means, even though it arrogated that authority to itself in Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. It is the people who have the final say, and they have several means available to frustrate or nullify unreasonable interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Here are some of them:
A President may simply decline to enforce a decision, as Lincoln did with Dred Scott. Or, Congress may pass laws that frustrate the decision, and dare the Court to strike them down. Congress also has power to remove the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts over cases involving a certain issue, making it practically impossible to bring a claim that a state law violates the Supreme Court's holding on that issue. Impeaching a justice may be the most extreme remedy. It's only been done once, long ago--but it may be time to look into it again.
Impeachment? Why, because a judge made a decision you don't like? Sorry, dude. You have no legal reasoning for your objections, which is why you've never made a coherent rebuttal.
Last edited by Deuce; 08-24-14 at 11:23 AM.
One of you will end up here next!
#1) Same sex people can marry now in all aspects except receiving the benefits of the marriage from the federal government and some states.
#2) AFAIK Homosexual sex is the sin. It's completely LEGAL in all states. SO the sinful act is already legal.
All people do when they rally against SSM is deny people the same benefits that others receive in the same situation. Usually because they don't want SSM to be considered legit.
From the ashes.
"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.